An article in USA Today dating 15/11 highlighted that the USA is pleased with the success of the Islamic parties in recent election in Turkey, Pakistan and Bahrain. It stated that foreign policy analyst say that it is no cause for alarm as this ''might pre-empt growing fundamentalism in those countries''.

''It should not be thought of as an Islamist party. It is a party firmly wedded to democratic principles,'' says David Logan, a former British ambassador to Turkey and now head of the Center for Studies in Security and Diplomacy, in England. ''All his pronouncements have been very supportive of American foreign policy. All the signals are good.''

Gerd Nonneman (expert in Middle Eastern politics at Lancaster University in England) as saying ''They've been made a part of the game, and the radical edges will be smoothed out as they get a stake in the status quo,''

''Once you become a part of the parliament, you have interests you want to maintain, and you don't want to upset the whole system,'' Nonneman says. ''The pattern over the past 20 years is that when these groups get integrated into the political game and acquire a stake in it, by and large they lose their extremist tinge.''

''For the United States, these elections are an opportunity, not a threat,'' Nonneman says. ''They don't have to create a huge, irretrievable clash.''

At first it may seem surprising and contradictory that at the same time the US is conducting a crusade against Islam, ''War Against Terror'' it is also pleased with the Islamic parties have succeeded in the election in these Islamic countries. This war has several lines of attack. The above statements clearly illustrate that these outcomes are a result of an American policy in the Islamic lands and that is why there is no alarm. This becomes even more apparent when we look to the documents published by the Rand Institute in 1995 :

The following is an excerpt from ''A sense of Siege'' under a section entitled The Politics of Inclusion :

''There is no easy answer about how to cope with the potentially negative, intolerant, anti-western tendencies of radical Islam, but there are two tasks to be met: The first is to change the more uncompromising policies and attitudes of Islamic movements where possible. Islamist movements are evolving and represent a considerable variety of ideas, tactics, leadership, and goals. It is important for western and Muslim governments to differentiate among them and deal with them. The second task is to marginalize the more extremist elements in ways that do not increase the use of violence on both sides, a trend that often serves only to strengthen, not weaken, the extremists.
 

The challenge is not a simple one. In the end, however, both problems can be successfully approached only by a policy of inclusion of Islam into the political system rather than exclusion. Exclusionary policies have simply not worked.
 

A policy of inclusion is based on the belief that once Islamist movements enter the political process, several different things happen.

The movement will have to move beyond facile slogans to declare its position on a variety of difficult issues; it will  have to adopt a platform open to public scrutiny.

What had strictly been a movement will now have to adopt political responsibilities via participation…

Islamist politicians will have to deal with others whose principles they do not necessarily accept, forcing them top compromise their abstract principles in the direction of reality.

Islamist parties will soon fall into 'normal perspective' within the political system; that is, they will no longer represent something special but will start to resemble other political parties with their same strengths, weaknesses, mistakes, foibles, and even corruption. This process has in fact happened in Turkey and Pakistan, where Islamist parties are a normal and, very often, unexciting part of the political spectrum.
 

This strategy, which is designed to change, compromise, and educate the Islamist..''

''Often objections arise that Islamists will support democracy, as nearly all do while in opposition, only to eliminate it when they themselves come to power - the formula known as 'one man, one vote, one time'...

Radical parties such as the Islamists must be allowed to enter the process only gradually. If they spring overnight from an underground forbidden status via a strong protest vote into a massive electoral victory, they will gain near total power and will not have been subject to the 'taming' experience of sharing in, but not dominating, governance. This was the Algerian experience in the elections in late 1991. Instead the entry of radical parties must be gradual, perhaps by their gaining control of certain municipalities or a modest proportion in the legislature. Control over their actions should also be available: a president, an army, a court system, and other mechanisms that will prevent Islamist from gaining total power at the outset and forcing them to work within the existing system...

Clearly, power by the ballot box offer the best chance to constrain the radicalism of Islamists''.

This should be a clear warning for those Islamic groups that wish to bring the Shariah through the Ballot box as not only is it against the Sunnah of the Rasool-Allah Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam but it is falling in to the trap that the colonialist have laid for the Muslims to compromise their Islam.

This attempt of the Kuffar to find a middle ground between Islam and Kufr and hence and weaken and compromise Islam is nothing new. The Quraysh in Mecca realized that fighting the Dawah of the Rasool-Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah through oppression, torture, boycott, slander only strengthened the call to Islam. Hence they concluded that they would adopt a policy of reconciliation i.e. a policy of Inclusion. It was reported by Ibn Ishaq (by Ibn Kathir ) that Ibn Abbas said ''Leaders from Quraysh chiefs met - and he enumerated their names - after sunset at the rear of the Ka'ba. Some said, 'Send for Muhammed and speak with him and argue with him so you will find excuse for him.'

So they sent a message to him, saying, 'The chiefs of your people have assembled to speak with you.'

Rasool-Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) came to them quickly, believing that there had been a change in their attitude to him. He was eager for them to accept the truth for their error, which was painful to him. He sat down with them.

''They said 'O Muhammed, we sent for you to reconcile with you. By God, we know of no Arab man who has ever brought his people as much trouble as you have. You have reviled the forebears, criticized the religion, ridiculed the values, cursed the gods, and divided our community. Every unpleasant thing possible you have done to make a rift between you and us.

''If you had come to say these things merely to seek wealth, we would have collected money for you from our own until you were the richest among us. If what you wanted was prestige, we would have placed in leadership over us. If you had wanted sovereignty, we would have made you king over us.''

Rasool-Allah replied. 'What you have said does not apply to me. I have not brought you my message seeking your money, nor honour among you, nor sovereignty over you.'

From this section of the seerah it is clear that Rasool Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) clearly rejected their offers as it was an attempt to compromise and dilute Islam.

The objective is not to seek power for the sake of power as demonstrated by the Rasool Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam). The objective is for them to accept the sovereignty for Islam only and not some half baked shariah and Kufr mix which smell of capitalism.